DOCSLIB.ORG

Gray Wolf Management in the Contiguous U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gray Wolf Management in the Contiguous U.S FACT SHEET Gray Wolf Management in the Contiguous U.S. Gray wolves (Canis lupus) once inhabited much of North America, but today occupy a relatively small fraction of their historic range.1 As a large carnivore perceived by many as a threat to public safety and livelihoods, the gray wolf remains one of the most challenging species to manage and conserve in the U.S.2 Large carnivores tend to invoke broad public interest in wildlife management. While this attention often benefits wildlife resources, it also gives rise to social pressures between competing demands to protect wildlife from people, and people and property from wildlife.2 For gray wolves, regional perceptions of unacceptable levels of conflict with humans means that wolf populations will likely never Gray wolves, as apex predators, play a critical role in maintaining the 3 sustainably occupy the majority of their historic range. balance of an ecological community (Credit: USFWS).4 Human-Wolf Conflict Gray Wolf Distribution in Contiguous U.S. In general, human attitudes towards large carnivores are inversely proportional to their abundance.2 As a result, many wolf populations require active management to be tolerated by local residents—often referred to as the social carrying capacity.5 This means that in today’s multiple-use landscapes, wildlife professionals must carefully consider both ecological and social constraints when developing management plans for any wolf population. Consideration of social constraints, however, does not mean abandonment of science. A scientific approach to management involving adaptive components is a pragmatic way to develop and By the 1930’s wolves were deliberately extirpated from nearly all of the western contiguous U.S. to justify wildlife management decisions in a socio- address social objectives and public concerns6 (Credit: Los Angeles Times).7 ecological system.2 Limitations of the Endangered Species Act In 1974, the gray wolf became an endangered species in the contiguous U.S. under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.8 The ESA has played an essential role in restoring wolves to the Northern Rocky Mountains, Western Great Lakes, and Southwest; but is not the most effective tool for long-term management of biologically-recovered wolf populations. Further conservation and restoration of wolves beyond these three regions will depend upon the localized—and * adaptive—efforts of states and tribes using scientific inquiry, stakeholder collaboration, and persistent public outreach. Status of Gray Wolf Populations in the Contiguous United States Southwest Population Western Great Lakes Northern Rocky Mountain (Mexican Wolf ) Minnesota, Wisconsin, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Location Michigan, and portions of 1 1 1 Washington, Oregon Oklahoma adjacent states 9 9 Habitat and prey loss Unregulated hunting Government sponsored predator control programs 10 Government sponsored Pre-ESA Government sponsored 10 10 predator control programs (1973) predator control programs Wolves extirpated from 6 Effectively eliminated from Decreased prey availability 9 region by 1930s U.S. by 1970 9 Population has rebounded Captive-bred Mexican wolves 14 and their range has Reintroduction efforts began reintroduced in 1998. 11 expanded in 19956 Current population remains 12 12 ~3,600 individuals in 2015 At least 1,704 individuals in small ~97 individuals. Present 6 282 packs by 2015 14 Delisted in 2012, but due to a Status: Endangered Federal court decision were Status: Delisted due to (excluding nonessential 13 relisted under ESA in 2014 recovery 6 experimental populations; Status: Endangered 13 see below) Nonessential Experimental Populations 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Lower 48-State and Mexico Gray Wolf (Canis Lupis) listing, 7. EleBee, L.I. 2013. Gray wolves’ history and recovery. Los Angeles Times, available at http:// as revised. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Office, Arlington, VA, USA. graphics.latimes.com/towergraphic-la-me-wolves/ (last accessed Jan. 2017). 2. Peek, J., Dale, B., Hristienko, H., Kantar, L., Loyd, K.A., Mahoney, S., Miller, C., Murray, D., Olver, 8. See, Endangered Species Act,16 U.S.C. Sections 1531-1544; Amendments to List of Endangered L., & Soulliere, C. 2012. Management of Large Mammalian Carnivores in North America. The Fish and Wildlife, 37 FR 14678 Wildlife Society Technical Review 12–01: 10. 9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. Proposed Reclassification of the Gray Wolf in the United 3. The Wildlife Society. 2012. Final Position Statement: Wolf Restoration and Management in the States and Mexico. 50 CFR Part 17: 29527–29529 Contiguous United States, available at http://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ 10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Gray Wolf Canis lupus, available at https://www.fws.gov/ PS_WolfRestorationandMgmtinUS.pdf midwest/Wolf/aboutwolves/pdf/WolfBiologueDec2011.pdf (last accessed Jan. 2017). 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental Conservation Online System, available at http:// 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Western Great Lakes Distinct Populations Segment of the ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A00D#status (last accessed Jan. 2017). Gray Wolf: 2012-2014 Post Delisting Monitoring Annual Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5. Peyton, R., Bull, P., & Holsman, R. 2007. Measuring the social carrying capacity for gray wolves in Midwest Regional Office, Bloomington, Minnesota, USA. Michigan (pp. 1–35). Lansing, Michigan. 12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Gray Wold (Canis lupus): Current population in the United 6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife & States, available at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/WolfPopUS.htm Parks, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Reinstatement of Final Rules for the Gray Wolf in Wyoming Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Confederated Colville Tribes, and the Western Great Lakes in Compliance With Court Orders. 50 CFR Part 17: 9219 Spokane Tribe of Indians, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of 14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endan- Fish and Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2016. gered Status for the Mexican Wolf. 50 CFR Part 17: 2488–2512. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 2015 Interagency Annual Report. M.D. Jimenez 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Revision to the Regulations for the Nonessential Experi- and S.A. Becker, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana, 59601. mental Population of the Mexican Wolf. 50 CFR Part 17: 2512–2567. See our complete Fact Sheet Series at www.wildlife.org/policy The Wildlife Society - 425 Barlow Place, Suite 200, Bethesda, MD 20814 - [email protected] Updated: March 2017 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wolf Hybrids
    Wolf Hybrids By Claudine Wilkins and Jessica Rock, Founders of Animal Law Source™ DEFINITION By definition, the wolf-dog hybrid is a cross between a domestic dog (Canis familiaris) and a wild Wolf (Canis Lupus). Wolves are the evolutionary ancestor of dogs. Dogs evolved from wolves through thousands of years of adaptation, living and being selectively bred and domesticated by humans. Because dogs and wolves are evolutionarily connected, dogs and wolves can breed together. Although this cross breeding can occur naturally, it is a rare occurrence in the wild due to the territorial and aggressive nature of wolves. Recently, the breeding of a dog with a wolf has become an accepted new phenomenon because wolf-hybrids are considered to be exotic and prestigious to own. To circumvent the prohibition against keeping wolves as pets, enterprising people have gone underground and are breeding and selling wolf-dog hybrids in their backyards. Consequently, an increase in the number of hybrids are being possessed without the minimum public safeguards required for the common domestic dog. TRAITS OF DOGS AND WOLVES Since wolf hybrids are a genetic mixture of wolves and dogs, they can seem to be similar on the surface. However, even though both may appear to be physically similar, there are many behavioral differences between wolves and dogs. Wolves raised in the wild appear to fear humans and will avoid contact whenever possible. Wolves raised in captivity are not as fearful of humans. This suggests that such fear may be learned rather than inherited. Dogs, on the other hand, socialize quite readily with humans, often preferring human company to that of other dogs.
    [Show full text]
  • Wolf Interactions with Non-Prey
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center US Geological Survey 2003 Wolf Interactions with Non-prey Warren B. Ballard Texas Tech University Ludwig N. Carbyn Canadian Wildlife Service Douglas W. Smith US Park Service Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc Part of the Animal Sciences Commons, Behavior and Ethology Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Ballard, Warren B.; Carbyn, Ludwig N.; and Smith, Douglas W., "Wolf Interactions with Non-prey" (2003). USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 325. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc/325 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 10 Wolf Interactions with Non-prey Warren B. Ballard, Ludwig N. Carbyn, and Douglas W. Smith WOLVES SHARE THEIR ENVIRONMENT with many an­ wolves and non-prey species. The inherent genetic, be­ imals besides those that they prey on, and the nature of havioral, and morphological flexibility of wolves has the interactions between wolves and these other crea­ allowed them to adapt to a wide range of habitats and tures varies considerably. Some of these sympatric ani­ environmental conditions in Europe, Asia, and North mals are fellow canids such as foxes, coyotes, and jackals. America. Therefore, the role of wolves varies consider­ Others are large carnivores such as bears and cougars.
    [Show full text]
  • Gray Wolf Populations in the Conterminous U.S
    Gray Wolf Populations in the Conterminous U.S. Wolves are apex predators on top of the food chain with no natural predators of their own. They play a critical role in maintaining the balance and structure of an ecological community. North American wolf numbers plummeted in the 1800’s and early 1900’s due to decreased availability of prey, habitat loss and in- creased extermination efforts to reduce predation on livestock and game animals. Gray wolves (Canis lupus) were listed as endan- gered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1974. Although wolves today occupy only a fraction of their historic range, conser- vation efforts have helped some populations to meet recovery goals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed Western Great Lakes gray wolves were delisted in removing protections for gray wolves throughout the U.S. and 2011 but will be monitored for five years to ensure Mexico in 2013 – a final decision is pending. recovery is sustained (Credit: USFWS). Western Great Lakes The FWS published a final rule at the Human-Wolf Conflict Population end of 2011 to delist wolves in Min- nesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Gray wolves of the Western Great Human-wolf conflicts continue Lakes region are mainly found portions of adjoining states. to occur as both populations throughout northern Minnesota and expand, particularly between Wisconsin, Michigan’s Upper Penin- sula, and Ontario.1 In the 1800s and wolves and livestock farmers. early 1900s, unregulated hunting, Social constraints must be government bounties, and diminished carefully considered when de- prey availability nearly eliminated the wolves in the Great Lakes veloping management plans for 2, 3, 4 any wolf population, including region.
    [Show full text]
  • Wolf Family Values
    Wolf family values The exquisitely balanced social life of the wolf has implications far beyond the pack, says Sharon Levy ORDON HABER was tracking a wolf pack Wolf Project. Despite many thousands of he had known for over 40 years when his hours spent in the field, Haber published G plane crashed on a remote stretch of the little peer-reviewed documentation of his Toklat river in Denali national park, Alaska, work. Now, however, in the months following last October. The fatal accident silenced one his sudden death, Smith and other wolf of the most outspoken and controversial biologists have reported findings that support advocates for wolf protection. Haber, an some of Haber’s ideas. independent biologist, had spent a lifetime Once upon a time, folklore shaped our studying the behaviour and ecology of wolves thinking about wolves. It is only in the past and his passion for the animals was obvious. two decades that biologists have started to “I am still in awe of what I see out there,” he build a clearer picture of wolf ecology (see wrote on his website. “Wolves enliven the “Beyond myth and legend”, page 42). Instead northern mountains, forests, and tundra like of seeing rogue man-eaters and savage packs, no other creature, helping to enrich our stay we now understand that wolves have evolved on the planet simply by their presence as other to live in extended family groups that include Few places remain highly advanced societies in our midst.” a breeding pair – typically two strong, where wolves can live His opposition to hunting was equally experienced individuals – along with several as nature intended intense.
    [Show full text]
  • Glimpse of an African… Wolf? Cécile Bloch
    $6.95 Glimpse of an African… Wolf ? PAGE 4 Saving the Red Wolf Through Partnerships PAGE 9 Are Gray Wolves Still Endangered? PAGE 14 Make Your Home Howl Members Save 10% Order today at shop.wolf.org or call 1-800-ELY-WOLF Your purchases help support the mission of the International Wolf Center. VOLUME 25, NO. 1 THE QUARTERLY PUBLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOLF CENTER SPRING 2015 4 Cécile Bloch 9 Jeremy Hooper 14 Don Gossett In the Long Shadow of The Red Wolf Species Survival Are Gray Wolves Still the Pyramids and Beyond: Plan: Saving the Red Wolf Endangered? Glimpse of an African…Wolf? Through Partnerships In December a federal judge ruled Geneticists have found that some In 1967 the number of red wolves that protections be reinstated for of Africa’s golden jackals are was rapidly declining, forcing those gray wolves in the Great Lakes members of the gray wolf lineage. remaining to breed with the more wolf population area, reversing Biologists are now asking: how abundant coyote or not to breed at all. the USFWS’s 2011 delisting many golden jackals across Africa The rate of hybridization between the decision that allowed states to are a subspecies known as the two species left little time to prevent manage wolves and implement African wolf? Are Africa’s golden red wolf genes from being completely harvest programs for recreational jackals, in fact, wolves? absorbed into the expanding coyote purposes. If biological security is population. The Red Wolf Recovery by Cheryl Lyn Dybas apparently not enough rationale for Program, working with many other conservation of the species, then the organizations, has created awareness challenge arises to properly express and laid a foundation for the future to the ecological value of the species.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for the Monitoring of the Central European Wolf Population in Germany and Poland
    Ilka Reinhardt, Gesa Kluth, Sabina Nowak and Robert W. Mysłajek Standards for the monitoring of the Central European wolf population in Germany and Poland BfN-Skripten 398 2015 Standards for the monitoring of the Central European wolf population in Germany and Poland Ilka Reinhardt Gesa Kluth Sabina Nowak Robert W. Mysłajek Cover picture: S. Koerner Graphic: M. Markowski Authors’ addresses: Ilka Reinhardt LUPUS, German Institute for Wolf Monitoring and Research Gesa Kluth Dorfstr. 20, 02979 Spreewitz, Germany Sabina Nowak Association for Nature “Wolf” Twadorzerczka 229, 34-324 Lipowa, Poland Robert Myslajek Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw Project Management: Harald Martens Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Unit II 1.1 “Wildlife Conservation” The present paper is the final report under the contract „Development of joint monitoring standards for wolves in Germany and Poland“, financed by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear safety (BMUB). Client: German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). Contract period: 01.03.2013 - 31.10.2013 This publication is included in the literature database “DNL-online” (www.dnl-online.de). BfN-Skripten are not available in book trade. A pdf version can be downloaded from the internet at: http://www.bfn.de/0502_skripten.html. Publisher: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Konstantinstrasse 110 53179 Bonn, Germany URL: http://www.bfn.de The publisher takes no guarantee for correctness, details and completeness of statements and views in this report as well as no guarantee for respecting private rights of third parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Red Wolf a Listable Unit Under the US Endangered Species Act?
    Journal of Heredity, 2018, 585–597 doi:10.1093/jhered/esy020 Original Article Advance Access publication 8 June 2018 Perspective Is the Red Wolf a Listable Unit Under the US Endangered Species Act? Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article-abstract/109/5/585/5034846 by guest on 22 January 2019 Robin S. Waples, Roland Kays, Richard J. Fredrickson, Krishna Pacifici, and L. Scott Mills From the NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA (Waples); the Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (Kays and Pacifici); the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC (Kays); Missoula, MT (Fredrickson); and Wildlife Biology Program and the Office of Research and Creative Scholarship, University of Montana, Missoula, MT (Mills). Address correspondence to L. Scott Mills at the address above, or e-mail: [email protected]. Received October 25, 2017; First decision January 11, 2018; Accepted May 8, 2018. Corresponding Editor: Fred Allendorf Abstract Defining units that can be afforded legal protection is a crucial, albeit challenging, step in conservation planning. As we illustrate with a case study of the red wolf (Canis rufus) from the southeastern United States, this step is especially complex when the evolutionary history of the focal taxon is uncertain. The US Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows listing of species, subspecies, or Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) of vertebrates. Red wolves were listed as an endangered species in 1973, and their status remains precarious. However, some recent genetic studies suggest that red wolves are part of a small wolf species (C. lycaon) specialized for heavily forested habitats of eastern North America, whereas other authors suggest that red wolves arose, perhaps within the last ~400 years, through hybridization between gray wolves (C.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management 2020 Annual Report
    Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management 2020 Annual Report This report to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission presents information on the status, distribution, and management of wolves in the State of Oregon from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. Suggested Citation: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management 2020 Annual Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE. Salem, OR, 97302 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 2 OREGON WOLF PROGRAM OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 3 Regulatory Status .................................................................................................................................. 3 Minimum Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution ........................................................................... 4 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Information and Outreach ..................................................................................................................... 7 Wolf Program Funding ......................................................................................................................... 8 LIVESTOCK DEPREDATION MANAGEMENT ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of the European Badger (Meles Meles) in the Western Carpathian Mountains: a Review
    Wildl. Biol. Pract., 2016 Aug 12(3): 36-50 doi:10.2461/wbp.2016.eb.4 REVIEW Ecology of the European Badger (Meles meles) in the Western Carpathian Mountains: A Review R.W. Mysłajek1,*, S. Nowak2, A. Rożen3, K. Kurek2, M. Figura2 & B. Jędrzejewska4 1 Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Pawińskiego 5a, 02-106 Warszawa, Poland. 2 Association for Nature “Wolf”, Twardorzeczka 229, 34-324 Lipowa, Poland. 3 Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Poland. 4 Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Waszkiewicza 1c, 17-230 Białowieża, Poland. * Corresponding author email: [email protected]. Keywords Abstract Altitudinal Gradient; This article summarizes the results of studies on the ecology of the European Diet Composition; badger (Meles meles) conducted in the Western Carpathians (S Poland) Meles meles; from 2002 to 2010. Badgers inhabiting the Carpathians use excavated setts Mustelidae; (53%), caves and rock crevices (43%), and burrows under human-made Sett Utilization; constructions (4%) as permanent shelters. Excavated setts are located up Spatial Organization. to 640 m a.s.l., but shelters in caves and crevices can be found as high as 1,050 m a.s.l. Badger setts are mostly located on slopes with southern, eastern or western exposure. Within their territories, ranging from 3.35 to 8.45 km2 (MCP100%), badgers may possess 1-12 setts. Family groups are small (mean = 2.3 badgers), population density is low (2.2 badgers/10 km2), as is reproduction (0.57 young/year/10 km2). Hunting by humans is the main mortality factor (0.37 badger/year/10 km2).
    [Show full text]
  • Prey Preference and Dietary Overlap of Sympatric Snow Leopard and Tibetan Wolf in Central Part of Wangchuck Centennial National Park
    Prey Preference and Dietary overlap of Sympatric Snow leopard and Tibetan Wolf in Central Part of Wangchuck Centennial National Park Yonten Jamtsho Wangchuck Centennial National Park Department of Forest and Park Services Ministry of Agriculture and Forest 2017 Abstract Snow leopards have been reported to kill livestock in most parts of their range but the extent of this predation and its impact on local herders is poorly understood. There has been even no effort in looking at predator-prey relationships and often we make estimates of prey needs based on studies from neighboring regions. Therefore this study is aimed at analysing livestock depredation, diets of snow leopard and Tibetan wolf and its implication to herder’s livelihood in Choekhortoe and Dhur region of Wangchuck Cetennial National Park. Data on the livestock population, frequency of depredation, and income lost were collected from a total of 38 respondents following census techniques. In addition scats were analysed to determine diet composition and prey preferences. The results showed 38 herders rearing 2815 heads of stock with average herd size of 74.07 stocks with decreasing trend over the years due to depredation. As a result Choekhortoe lost 8.6% while Dhur lost 5.07% of total annual income. Dietary analysis showed overlap between two species indicated by Pianka index value of 0.83 for Dhur and 0.96 for Choekhortoe. The prey preference for snow leopard and Tibetan wolf are domestic sheep and blue sheep respectively, where domestic sheep is an income for herders and blue sheep is important for conservation of snow leopard.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining and Applying the Concept of Favourable Reference Values for Species and Habitats Under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives
    Defining and applying the concept of Favourable Reference Values for species and habitats under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives Examples of setting favourable reference values Service contract No. 07.0202/2015/715107/SER/ENV.B.3 financed by the European Commission – contractor: Alterra, institute within the legal entity Stichting DLO (now: Wageningen Environmental Research) R.J. Bijlsma1, E. Agrillo2, F. Attorre2, L. Boitani3, A. Brunner4, P. Evans5, R. Foppen6, S. Gubbay7, J.A.M. Janssen1, A. van Kleunen6, W. Langhout4, M. Pacifici3, I. Ramírez8, C. Rondinini3, M. van Roomen6, H. Siepel9, C.A.M. van Swaaij10 & H.V. Winter11 1 Wageningen Environmental Research 2 Comunità Ambiente 3 Istituto Ecologia Applicata 4 Stichting BirdLife Europe 5 Sea Watch Foundation 6 Sovon Dutch Centre for Field Ornithology 7 Susan Gubbay 8 BirdLife International 9 Radboud University Nijmegen 10 Dutch Butterfly Conservation 11 Wageningen Marine Research Wageningen Environmental Research Wageningen, July 2018 Disclaimer: The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Contents Preface 5 1 Cetaceans 7 1.1 Common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in the European Atlantic 7 1.2 Short-beaked common dolphin
    [Show full text]
  • Early History of the Wolf, Black Bear, and Mountain Lion in Arkansas Annalea K
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarWorks@UARK Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 55 Article 4 2001 Early History of the Wolf, Black Bear, and Mountain Lion in Arkansas Annalea K. Bowers University of Arkansas at Little Rock Leah D. Lucio University of Arkansas at Little Rock David W. Clark University of Arkansas at Little Rock Susan P. Rakow University of Arkansas at Little Rock Gary A. Heidt University of Arkansas at Little Rock, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Bowers, Annalea K.; Lucio, Leah D.; Clark, David W.; Rakow, Susan P.; and Heidt, Gary A. (2001) "Early History of the Wolf, Black Bear, and Mountain Lion in Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 55 , Article 4. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol55/iss1/4 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.
    [Show full text]